MovieChat Forums > Quentin Tarantino Discussion > Why is Quentin Tarantino given a pass on...

Why is Quentin Tarantino given a pass on the violence directed at women in his movies?


https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/eh60o7/why_is_quentin_tarantino_given_a_pass_on_the/

I just watched "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and the scene where Brad Pitt repeatedly smashes a woman's face into concrete made me nauseous yet I go to the comments section and people are laughing. Like WTF. People actually enjoy this? And yes, I'm aware of the context but it doesn't make it right especially when you realize there seems to be a delight in seeing a woman being viciously beaten.

In The Hateful Eight, Jennifer Jason Leigh is beaten up for most of the movie until she ends up with no teeth and once again, people found it amusing.

Maybe I'm wrong but sorry, I don't think it's funny to see women being tortured.

reply

This all depends on you views of artistic freedom and censorship.

Do you think that the violence depicted encourages spousal abuse or violence against women? If so then you would be in line with the thinking of the 1950's where many of the violent QT scenes would be edited to oblivion. The 1950s had strick codes on what could be shown in movies.

Or

Take the side of artistic freedom, in which all sides of humanity should be shown, even uglier ones.

The new generations seem to want to return to the 50's era of censorship, befuddling both Boomers and Gen Xers alike.

QT is one of the 'last of the independents' in movie making, given artistic freedom to create movies without a committee intervening. Because of this he should be supported no matter what your views.

Unless of course you prefer your movies homogenized.

reply

The new generations seem to want to return to the 50's era of censorship, befuddling both Boomers and Gen Xers alike.


Oh, no! If that happened, we'd be returning to the days of On The Waterfront, Ben Hur, Rear Window, Stalag 17, DOA, Lady and the Tramp, The Ten Commandments, Sunset Boulevard, Bridge Over the River Kwai and Some Like It Hot! Oh, the horror!

reply

NO ONE SAID FILM QUALITY OF THE 50S...CENSORSHIP OF THE 50S...VERY DIFFERENT.

reply

Come on, you understood what he was talking about.. -.-

reply

And I don't think you understood the sarcasm behind my comment.

All the 1950s censorship in the world didn't prevent great movies from being made, movies--I might add-- that are arguably better than anything QT directed (and that's coming from someone who idolizes Pulp Fiction).

reply

[deleted]

Yeah I don't know which way I fall on this but IMO gratuitous violence/sex in film I think detracts and distracts from the narrative. Movies seem to more and more rely on the visual shock and awe of the violence (or sex) instead of letting subtlety support a narrative, I do not think that is 'artistic licensing' I think it is used to be lazy.

The way I see it suggestion of violence in film is far more effective that showing the violence explicitly. It forces the filmmakers to do something clever to get their desired results and the outcome is often superior. Sometimes those censoring obstacles can help the art and not hinder it. Sometimes artist don't know how much is too much.

Case in point; one of the most effective depictions of violence is from the bathtub/chainsaw scene in Scarface. In that scene very little violence is actually shown; you see some blood splatter and the reactions of Al Pacino and the other actor (getting chainsawed). Today they would just show the entirety of the guy getting dismemberment and it would be less effective because you would see how fake it was (no matter how real they make it look you know it is not and your brain picks up on it). But when it is only suggested it feels more real.

reply

There's a line, imo, between showing something "true" for artistic merit and simply fetishing violence. Since I haven't seen either of these films, I can't say whether that line has been crossed. But I'm gonna assume, since it's Tarantino, it's the latter and so no I do not pass him.

reply

[deleted]

Jawohl, I also do aghee that violence against ze womens on ze film is antithetical to ze holy struggle of Feminizm. QT shall not be given a pass for such insolence and must be sent to ze re-education camp!

reply

-In Reservoir Dogs (1992) a male officer is tortured to the point of having his ear cut off.
-In Pulp Fiction (1994) a man is brutally raped and another’s head is blown off.
-never mind

We can continue on his filmography but it’s useless. His films depict violence directed at and being dished out by both sexes. Did you not catch that in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood one of the hippies who brutally died at the hands of Booth was a male? Oh wait. I forgot the dog helped out. Was it a male dog? Would it make “woke” idiots feel better if it were a female?

Seriously people, it’s a fictional story. Get a grip.

reply

I don't give a shit about Quentin Tarantino in terms of his politics because he's too much of a goober to take seriously. However, you are also giving him way too much credit. The most violent scenes and deaths mostly involve women and minorities, with the alpha male (and in some cases, villain) walking away with barely a scratch. So, he definitely does that thing of red shirting both groups in his movies.

reply

Using internet sources there were 210 men and 27 women killed in his films.

Reservoir Dogs - 1 Woman killed possibly in the heist. Men suffered much more gruesome deaths.

Pulp Fiction - no women killed

Jackie Brown - One Woman killed off camera

Kill Bill - 78 men killed mostly by disfigurement at the hands of the bride. 10 women killed mostly by the bride as well.

Death Proof - Five women killed in gruesome ways. Women get revenge on killer in end.

Inglorious Basterds - 6 women killed. Most by gun shot except one woman strangled. Many men burned alive.

Django Unchained - 2 women killed. I could not remember nor could I find info on deaths.

Hateful 8 - 16 men killed and three women all in various fashions. Female lead beaten throughout movie.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood- one male and 2 females killed in equally gruesome fashion.


So, 210 men and 27 women were killed and men in worse fashion in most cases. Only does Hateful 8 stand out because of the beating of the lead female character. In fact much of the carnage is dealt by females.

All of Tarantino’s films borrow styles and story lines from a wide variety of genres popular during non “woke” times. I’m just respectfully saying that we should allow artist make art and realize they are fictional films and not necessarily a commentary on current life.

reply

BOOM!...DAMN...THAT IS ONE HARD SCHOOLING YOU JUST LAID DOWN ON THAT PC PIRATE.

reply

Bravo!

Don't forget, two men are killed in Jackie Brown on-camera and one more is killed off-camera.

reply

the hero of the day

reply

You know the old saying: some heroes don’t wear capes. Lol

reply

That's a great way to shut these kinds of people up, with arguments, all they have are emotions.

reply

Now that facts are laid out I kind of wish she would be courteous enough to reply.

reply

don't hold your breath bro

reply

Excellent, well done.

reply

I wonder who this user was. 😀

reply

THANK YOU! Listen to this guy, he is smart.

reply

quoting reddit posts?
take that mind garbage elsewhere

reply

* In Hateful Eight, it's a comedy moment. So people are laughing. I haven't seen OUATIH yet.

* Movies are fictions. You can show whatever you want in fictions. Whether feminists or other people like it or not.

* Equality. If it's ok to show violence against men in movies, it should be allowed to show violence against women.


reply

"Equality. If it's ok to show violence against men in movies, it should be allowed to show violence against women. "

Exactly. I don't understand why there are still so many men opposing to violence against women in cinema. Grow a pair of balls.

reply

It's a tacit admission by Hollywood that the current violence victim narrative in the public space is bullshit, that women by a fairly wide margin are the ones initiating the violence in the first place.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746

https://domestic-violence-law.com/men-or-women-who-usually-instigates/

reply

The woman having her faced smashed into things repeatedly was a psychotic wanna be murderer who broke into someone’s house with the intent to violently kill people...and people are upset that this person, excuse me, this PSYCHO gets her head smashed off of things because she has a vagina?

Seriously, fuck society, and ANYONE who shares the opinion of that original poster from Reddit.

Probably didn’t even see or notice the male character get his nuts bitten off by the dog and his head squashed like a grapefruit.

Oh, those poor Manson family murderers, the ones with vaginas instead of penises, got killed.

Once again, fuck society. And to the censorship bureau taking over said society...I will laugh at whatever the fuck I want, especially your warped view on morality, gender, and what is and isn’t funny. Piss off and crawl back under your moldy rock. No one likes you.

reply

Well said. In modern society, women are given carte blanche with their free will, and there is to be no opposition, and if you do oppose, you are a "misogynist", even when it comes to psychos attempting to murder people in a fictional situation. It's unreal. Just like how I'm called a "racist" because I don't subscribe to the idea that every modern black person is incapable of doing anything wrong or being guilty of even the slightest offense. No, no, it must be an injustice, right? Poor Jussie. Though, they are correct when they say that there is no equality. We skipped right over it.

reply

"people are upset that this person, excuse me, this PSYCHO gets her head smashed off of things because she has a vagina? "

THIS! Amen brother.

reply

I find it odd that the OP (and the Redditor they quoted) says;
"And yes, I'm aware of the context but it doesn't make it right..."

If they're ACTUALLY aware of the context, it seems kind of foolish to completely ignore the context in order to push their opinion. IMO, anyway.

reply

The woman having her faced smashed into things repeatedly was a psychotic wanna be murderer who broke into someone’s house with the intent to violently kill people...and people are upset that this person, excuse me, this PSYCHO gets her head smashed off of things because she has a vagina?

Seriously, fuck society, and ANYONE who shares the opinion of that original poster from Reddit.

Probably didn’t even see or notice the male character get his nuts bitten off by the dog and his head squashed like a grapefruit.

Oh, those poor Manson family murderers, the ones with vaginas instead of penises, got killed.

---

The woman who got her face smashed repeatedly is likely a stand-in for any(except Susan Atkins, see below) of the "Manson women" who killed Sharon Tate and her friends one night, and then -- totally at random -- a middle-aged couple named Leno and Rosemary LaBianca a few(?) nights later.

One of those women -- the woman who stabbed Rosemary LaBianca over 12 times as the other Mansons butchered Leo and left a fork in the stomach of his corpse -- was released on parole from prison in July, 2023. Her name is Leslie Van Houten. Age 74. Not THAT old in today's society.

Its just more fitting and fun to see her get her face smashed in this movie.

(The one who gets face-canned, dog-chewed, and flame-torched was based on real Manson killer girl Susan Atkins, who stabbed the 8-month pregnant Sharon Tate, killing her baby in the process.. She died in prison.)

reply